![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment: Proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Discharges From Construction Activities in Indian Country Within the State of Wisconsin
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: December 21, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 65957-65961]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21de01-62]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7121-6]
Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment: Proposed
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit
for Discharges of Storm Water Discharges From Construction Activities
in Indian Country Within the State of Wisconsin
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 (EPA).
ACTION: Notice and request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's notice announces EPA's intention to issue a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for storm
water discharges from construction activities in Indian country within
the State of Wisconsin. The general permit is proposed to cover
discharges within Indian country, including the following areas: Bad
River Indian Reservation, Forest County Potawatomi Indian Reservation,
Ho-Chunk Nation Indian Reservation, Lac Courte Oreilles Indian
Reservation, Lac Du Flambeau Indian Reservation, Menominee Indian
Reservation, Oneida Indian Reservation, Red Cliff Indian Reservation,
Sokaogon (Mole Lake) Indian Reservation, St. Croix Indian Reservation,
and the Stockbridge-Munsee Indian Reservation.
Section 402(p)(2)(B) of the 1987 Clean Water Act requires NPDES
permits for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity.
Sources regulated include discharges from municipal separate storm
sewer systems with populations of generally 100,000 or more and 11
categories of industrial activity. EPA has defined storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity to include storm water
discharges from construction sites which disturb 5 or more acres (see
40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)). This formed the basis of Phase I of the
national storm water regulations.
On December 8, 1999, EPA published Phase II of the national storm
water regulations. Phase II regulates storm water discharges from small
municipal separate storm sewer systems and discharges associated with
small construction activity, including construction sites which disturb
between 1 and 5 acres (40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)(i)). The proposed permit
will address construction sites regulated under both the Phase I and
Phase II Rules. However, the requirements for small construction sites
will not be effective until March 10, 2003, the date by which these
sources are to comply with the Phase II storm water regulations. The
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991
postponed the Phase I permitting deadline for any storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity (which includes construction
activity) that is owned or operated by any municipality with
populations less than 100,000, except for a discharge from an airport,
powerplant, or uncontrolled sanitary landfill. Originally, EPA codified
the ISTEA amendments by ``reserving'' permit application requirements.
In the Phase II rules, however, EPA established that deadline as March
10, 2003. Construction storm water discharges that are owned or
operated by Indian tribes are included in the ISTEA exemption because
CWA section 502(4) defines ``municipality'' to include ``an Indian
tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization.'' Thus, Tribes are
not required to apply for permits for their construction activities
until the March 10, 2003 deadline.
EPA invites public comment on the provisions of the draft permit
within the public notice period established by this notice. In
addition, EPA will hold several public meetings and a public hearing to
discuss the proposed permit. The dates and locations are listed below:
Date: January 9, 2002.
Location: University of Wisconsin, Director's Room 4151, Grainger
Hall, 975 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706.
Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Date: January 17, 2002.
Location: Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary, Auditorium, 1660 East Shore
Drive, Green Bay, WI.
Time: 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Date: January 29, 2002.
Location: Marathon County Public Library, Wausau Room, 300 First
Street, Wausau, WI 54403.
Time: Public Meeting 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Public Hearing 6:00
p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
If the library is closed due to bad weather, the public meeting and
public hearing will be rescheduled for February 5, 2002, at the same
times as listed above.
These meetings will also be posted on the Region 5 Storm Water
Website (www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/npdstma.htm) and in one or more
newspapers of general circulation within the state. Copies of the draft
general permit and an accompanying fact sheet may be obtained by
contacting EPA at the following telephone number or mailing address:
Brian Bell, (312) 886-0981, NPDES Programs Branch (WN-16J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604. Electronic copies of the draft permit and fact sheet
may be viewed at the Region 5 Public Notice Page (www.epa.gov/r5water/
npdestek/npdcfrp.htm) or the NPDES Page (www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/
npdnpda.htm). Users with appropriate software capabilities may also
download electronic versions of these documents.
DATES: Comments on the draft permit must be received by February 5,
2002. EPA will accept comments submitted in writing or transmitted
electronically.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the draft permit may be sent to: Brian Bell,
NPDES Programs Branch (WN-16J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Comments may
also be transmitted electronically to bell.brianc@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Bell, at the above address or,
via telephone at 312-886-0981.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The State of Wisconsin has previously been authorized by EPA to
issue NPDES permits outside of Indian country, and has issued general
permits to regulate the vast majority of construction site storm water
discharges outside Indian country within the State of Wisconsin. USEPA
retains the authority to issue NPDES permits within Indian country
within the State of Wisconsin. Indian country means (a) All land within
the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent,
and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all
dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States
whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof,
and whether within or without the limits of the State, and (c) all
Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been
extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. See 18
U.S.C. 1151.
II. National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470a et
seq., generally requires, among other things, that Federal agencies
take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic
properties. Section 106 of NHPA seeks to accommodate historic
preservation concerns with the needs of Federal undertakings through
[[Page 65958]]
consultation among the agency official and other parties with an
interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties. The
goal of this consultation process is to identify historic properties
potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek
ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic
properties. See 65 FR 77698, 77725 (December 12, 2000).
Under Section 106, EPA must complete the consultation process
``prior to the issuance of any license.'' See 36 CFR 800.1(c). EPA has
interpreted this language to apply this requirement to the issuance of
today's proposed general NPDES permit for Indian country in Wisconsin.
EPA is, therefore, conducting a Section 106 consultation regarding
issuance of the proposed general permit.
Several parties have consultative roles in the Section 106 process
that EPA is conducting for this proposed permit for Indian country in
Wisconsin. These include (1) The Tribal historic preservation officer
(THPO), for a tribe that has assumed such responsibilities under
section 101(d)(2) of the NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470a(d)(2); (2) the State
historic preservation officer (SHPO); (3) designated representative(s)
of an Indian tribe where a tribe has not assumed responsibilities of a
SHPO.
In the process of preparing the proposed permit for Indian country
in Wisconsin, EPA considered several possible options for meeting
Section 106 of the NHPA. EPA conducted a series of consultations with
the Wisconsin tribes (including THPOs and designated tribal government
officials) and the Wisconsin SHPO. The consultation was conducted in a
series of telephone conference calls held on February 13, February 22,
March 13, and March 29, 2001.
During the consultation process, participants raised several
concerns. These concerns included (1) The need for an understanding of
technical and operational aspects of NPDES general permits; (2) the
need for timely notice in advance of planned development projects; (3)
the need for sufficient time and resources to complete historic
property surveys; (4) the need to define the role of the SHPO, Tribe or
THPO in the process for addressing effects on historic properties as
applicants seek coverage under this NPDES general permit; (5) the need
for a defined process to address potential effects on historic
properties in the event of inadvertent discovery of historic properties
after construction of a particular project covered under this general
permit has begun; (6) the need for a consistent process to document how
effects on historic properties have been addressed; (7) the need to
streamline the coordination process for addressing effects on historic
properties consultation across multiple, similar projects and similar
geographic locations.
During the consultation, EPA explained the technical and
operational requirements of the general permit, and stated that EPA is
seeking information to develop a systematic process that would allow
for comprehensive screening for historic properties, but also that
would be sensitive to the different processes used by the THPOs, Tribal
officials, and the SHPO.
Participants were concerned about an initial option proposed by EPA
which would have included in the proposed general permit a precondition
for coverage against discharges impacting historic sites, but without a
requirement that the permit applicant seek a certification from the
THPO or SHPO.
Participants were also concerned about a second option proposed by
EPA which would have included in the proposed general permit a
precondition for coverage against discharges impacting historic sites,
but including a certification from the THPO, Tribe or SHPO. The
concerns focused on the lack of a defined process and whether there
would be sufficient time and resources to conduct site surveys to
identify historic properties.
Participants also reviewed a third option proposed by EPA, which
would provide a choice of means to provide certification, similar to
the approach used in EPA's Region 4 general permit. See 63 FR 15622
(March 31, 1998). Concerns raised by participants on this approach
focused on how the different options for meeting historic property
review eligibility requirements could be most clearly defined so that
permit applicants would be able to easily understand and meet these
requirements.
As a result of the concerns raised during the consultation process,
EPA proposed that the general permit include a performance-based
standard that the applicant would not be eligible to apply for permit
coverage until the applicant had coordinated with the appropriate
official(s) (THPO, SHPO and/or tribes) to identify historic properties
and to assess and attempt to resolve any adverse effects. This pre-
certification provision was designed to address the THPO, SHPO, and
tribes' concerns that they generally lacked sufficient notice of a
proposed development project to conduct the necessary review and
coordination on impacts to historic properties. Concerns were also
raised during consultation that applicants be informed of the
appropriate procedures that would apply to coordinating the review of
effects on historic properties in this option. In response to these
concerns, EPA proposed that the general permit would include specific
references to relevant provisions of the Section 106 regulations (36
CFR 800.4-800.6, 800.13) to ensure that the regulated community was
specifically informed of the pre-certification procedures they would
need to meet in order to be eligible for coverage under the general
permit. Under this option, the relevant procedures in the referenced
provisions regarding coordination with local officials would guide
applicants in coordinating with the THPO, SHPO and/or tribes to
identify historic properties and to assess and attempt to resolve any
adverse effects on such properties. The proposed permit would authorize
such activities so long as the proper pre-certification procedures had
been followed by the applicant.
In this option, which is the option included in today's proposed
general permit, in order to be eligible for coverage under the general
permit, applicants would need to certify that they had coordinated with
the appropriate THPO, SHPO and/or tribal official consistent with the
relevant procedures of the Section 106 regulations. The proposed permit
would require that the applicant provide evidence of prior screening
for the presence of historic properties and develop a mitigation plan,
as needed, in coordination with the appropriate officials consistent
with the relevant provisions of the Section 106 regulations. Finally,
in the event of an inadvertent discovery of an historic property on the
site during construction, the permittee would be required to
immediately stop construction activity and coordinate with the
appropriate THPO, SHPO and/or tribal official consistent with 36 CFR
800.13.
As part of its Section 106 consultation process on this proposed
general permit, EPA invites all interested parties to comment on this
option. Information regarding EPA's consultation process and the other
options generally described above, is available on request from the
address at the beginning of this notice.
III. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.,
establishes a scheme whereby states develop a Coastal Zone Management
Plan to protect coastal areas within their jurisdiction. Section 307(c)
of the CZMA
[[Page 65959]]
requires that Federal agencies determine that various Federal
activities are ``consistent with the enforceable policies of approved
State management programs'' to the maximum extent possible. See 16
U.S.C. 1456(c)(1)(A).
The CZMA and its implementing regulations distinguish between
different kinds of Federal activities. Section 307(c)(3) of the CZMA
requires a consistency determination for a Federal ``license or
permit.'' See 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3). The CZMA implementing regulations
promulgated on December 8, 2000 (65 FR 77124), provide that a general
permit program, which does not involve case-by-case approval by the
Federal agency, can be addressed as a ``federal activity'' under
Section 307(c)(3) of the CZMA. See 15 CFR 930.31(d).
Pursuant to these regulations, ``When proposing a general permit
program, a Federal agency shall provide a consistency determination to
the relevant management programs and request that the State agency(ies)
provide the Federal agency with conditions that would permit the State
agency (defined at 15 CFR 930.18) to concur with the Federal agency's
consistency determination. State concurrence shall remove the need for
the State agency to review future case-by-case uses of the general
permit for consistency with the enforceable policies of management
programs.'' See 15 CFR 930.31(d).
The regulations further provide that should the State object to the
general permit or should the general permit not incorporate State
conditions to the maximum extent practicable, the Federal agency shall
notify potential users of the general permit that the general permit is
not authorized for that State unless the State agency concurs that the
activity is consistent with the State's management program. In that
case, applicants would provide the State agency with their own
consistency certification under the CZMA. See 15 CFR.930.31(d).
According to NOAA regulations and Wisconsin's Coastal Management
Program, lands held in trust by the United States are excluded from the
coastal zone area. See 16 U.S.C. 1453(l); 15 CFR 923.33(a); Wisconsin
Department of Administration, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program:
Strategic Vision for the Great Lakes, [WCMP], June 1999, Section C,
Federal Consistency. Issuance of NPDES permits currently is not
included in Wisconsin's list of federal permits requiring consistency
certification. See WCMP, Section E. However, the regulations provide
that a consistency determination is still required when any
``spillover'' impacts may affect the coastal zone.
EPA believes that today's proposed permit is unlikely to have
spillover impacts that may affect the coastal zone as defined in the
WCMP. See WCMP at Section C.1(a). Permittees would be required to
follow their storm water management plan, which includes erosion and
sediment control best management practices and perimeter controls
tailored for the particular construction site. These controls are
supposed to bring discharges into compliance with applicable water
quality standards within Indian country and state water quality
standards when discharges leave Indian country. The proposed general
permit is consistent with the technical and operational standards of
the State's WPDES permit program. Based on EPA's analysis of the WPDES
permit requirements, and the WCMP, EPA believes that the proposed
permit would be ``consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of approved State management programs'' as
specified in Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA. See also 15 CFR
930.32(a)(1).
Under 15 CFR 930.41, the State agency has 60 days from today's
notice to inform EPA of its agreement or disagreement with this
consistency determination. EPA invites comments on its application of
the CZMA to today's proposed permit.
IV. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866)
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; materially
alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or raise
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. EPA has determined that the issuance of this general permit is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive
Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to formal OMB review prior to
proposal.
V. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments)
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The term ``policies that have
tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
Agency actions that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
EPA has concluded that this proposed general permit may have tribal
implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13175. EPA believes
that the proposed general permit, however, does not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Overall, EPA expects that the impact of the proposed general permit on
tribes will be positive. EPA's current NPDES permitting option for
Indian country within Wisconsin is to issue individual permits.
Issuance of this proposed general permit will provide EPA another NPDES
permitting option for discharges of storm water associated with
construction activity in Indian country. EPA anticipates that the
availability of the general permit will promote better compliance with
NPDES requirements in Indian country, thus improving water quality.
Moreover, beginning in March of 2003, tribes will be required to comply
with existing NPDES permit requirements. The proposed general permit
will, in some situations, allow tribes to obtain a permit for discharge
of storm water from construction sites more easily and quickly.
Consistent with EPA policy, EPA consulted with tribal leaders to
ensure that they had meaningful and timely input into the development
of this proposed general permit, as well as to provide comments to EPA
on particular provisions in the proposed draft permit. EPA consulted
with representatives from tribes located in Wisconsin on December 19,
2000, February 13, February 22, March 13, and March 29, 2001. During
the consultation process, participants raised several concerns.
[[Page 65960]]
These concerns included (1) The need for an understanding of technical
and operational aspects of NPDES general permits; (2) the relationship
of the proposed general permit with other federal general permits
issued by EPA; (3) the need for timely notice in advance of planned
development projects; (4) the need for timely inspections and
enforcement for potential violations of NPDES permit requirements; (5)
the need for greater tribal involvement in permit issuance in Indian
country; (6) the need for sufficient time, resources, and efficient
process to undertake historic property surveys and otherwise ensure
that permit applicants would comply with regulations protecting
historic properties.
During this consultation, EPA explained the function and provisions
of the proposed general permit, and explained the relationship between
the proposed general permit and other federal general permits issued by
EPA. EPA also explained the technical provisions of the proposed
permit, including requirements which applicants would need to complete
prior to filing a Notice of Intent and certification that pre-
application requirements had been met. EPA also considered tribes'
desire to obtain more timely notice of proposed construction projects
within Indian country, and included in the draft permit a provision
that would require permit applicants to send copies of the Notice of
Intent form to both EPA's Region 5 office as well as the environmental
department of the relevant tribe, in addition to mailing the notice to
EPA's national office. EPA also included a recommendation in its fact
sheet for the proposed permit that encouraged applicants to contact the
relevant tribal environmental department as early in the planning stage
as possible, with 90 days being the suggested minimum. EPA also
addressed tribes' general concerns for greater tribal involvement in
NPDES permitting by discussing how tribes could apply for and obtain
federally authorized permitting authorities on their own through the
``treatment as state'' or tribal eligibility process outlined in
Section 518 of the Clean Water Act. EPA explained that the proposed
general federal permit was designed to provide direct implementation of
the federal NPDES permit program in Indian country until such time as
each tribe in Wisconsin could obtain a federally authorized permitting
program of their own, if they so wished. Specific concerns raised by
tribes regarding how regulations protecting historic properties may
apply to the proposed general permit, as well as EPA's consultation
with state and tribal officials on the application of the NHPA to
today's action, are specifically discussed in this notice in the
National Historic Preservation Act section.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
general permit from tribal officials.
VI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Pub L. 104-
4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
``regulatory actions'' on State, local, and tribal government and the
private sector. UMRA uses the term ``regulatory action'' to refer to
regulations. (See, e.g., UMRA section 201, ``Each agency shall . . .
assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions . . . (other than to
the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically
set forth in law)'' (emphasis added)). UMRA section 102 defines
``regulation'' by reference to 2 U.S.C. 658 which in turn defines
``regulation'' and ``rule'' by reference to section 601(2) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). That section of the RFA defines
``rule'' as ``any rule for which the agency publishes a notice of
proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 553(b) of (the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA)), or any other law * * *.''
As discussed in the RFA section of this notice, NPDES general
permits are not ``rules'' under the APA and thus are not subject to the
APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. NPDES
general permits are also not subject to such a requirement under the
CWA. While EPA publishes a notice to solicit public comment on proposed
general permits, it does so pursuant to the CWA section 402(a)
requirement to provide ``an opportunity for a hearing.'' Thus, NPDES
general permits are not ``rules'' for RFA or UMRA purposes.
Nevertheless, EPA has considered the proposed general permit in
light of UMRA's requirements. As noted elsewhere in today's notice, the
proposed general permit is virtually the same as the NPDES general
permits for construction that many construction operators have used
over the past three years. EPA has determined that the proposed permit
would not contain a Federal requirement that would result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The Agency also believes that the proposed general permit will not
significantly nor uniquely affect small governments. For UMRA purposes,
``small governments'' is defined by reference to the definition of
``small governmental jurisdiction'' under the RFA. (See UMRA section
102(1), referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which references section 601(5) of
the RFA.) ``Small governmental jurisdiction'' means governments of
cities, counties, towns, etc., with a population of less than 50,000,
unless the agency establishes an alternative definition.
Under existing regulations, a permit application is not required
until March 10, 2003, for a storm water discharge associated with
construction activity where the construction site is owned or operated
by a municipality with a population of less than 100,000. See 64 FR
68780 (December 8, 1999). In any event, the requirements of the
proposed general permit would not significantly affect small
governments because most State laws outside Indian country already
provide for the control of sedimentation and erosion in a similar
manner as today's proposed general permit. The proposed general permit
also will not uniquely affect small governments because compliance with
the proposed permit conditions affects small governments in the same
manner as any other entities seeking coverage under the proposed
permit.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities
resulting from the proposed general permit under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. In a separate Federal
Register Notice, EPA will propose, a revision to the current
Information Collection Request (ICR) document (Approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) OMB No. 2040-0188, expiration date of
March 31, 2003) to account for the increased information requirements
proposed in today's permit. EPA will publish the proposed ICR revisions
in a separate Federal Register notice and EPA will submit the revisions
to OMB for approval prior to issuance of the final permit.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
The Agency has determined that the proposed general permit being
published today is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(``RFA''), which generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any significant impact the rule will have on a
substantial number of small entities. By its terms, the RFA only
[[Page 65961]]
applies to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') or any other statute.
Today's proposed general permit is not subject to notice and comment
requirements under the APA or any other statute because the APA defines
``rules'' in a manner that excludes permits. See APA section
551(4),(6), and (8).
APA section 553 does not require public notice and opportunity for
comment for interpretative rules or general statements of policy. In
addition to proposing the new general permit, today's notice repeats an
interpretation of existing regulations promulgated almost twenty years
ago. The action would impose no new or additional requirements.
Nevertheless, the Agency has considered and addressed the potential
impact of the proposed general permit on small entities in a manner
that meets the requirements of the FRA. EPA took such action based on
the likelihood that a large number of small entities may seek coverage
under the general permit if finalized as proposed. The proposed general
permit would make available to many small entities, particularly
operators of construction sites, a streamlined process for obtaining
authorization to discharge. Of the possible permitting mechanisms
available to dischargers subject to the CWA, NPDES general permits are
designed to reduce the reporting and monitoring burden associated with
NPDES permit authorization, especially for small entities with
discharges having comparatively less potential for environmental
degradation than discharges regulated under individual NPDES permits.
Thus, general permits provide small entities with a permitting
application option that is much less burdensome than NPDES individual
permit applications.
IX. Official Signatures
After review of the facts present in the notice printed above, I
hereby certify pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that these
general permits will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Dated: December 14, 2001.
Jo Lynn Traub,
Director, Water Division, Region V.
[FR Doc. 01-31492 Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P